Is NOTCENSORED a WMF-wide policy?

I was recently surprised to come across a Project page at nv.wp which explicitly proscribes certain topics from being included on the encyclopedia. And it does so, it would appear, out of topic censorship, rather than considerations of e.g. Notability – at least, this is how I would take instructions like "No ... depictions of deities" or "If your grandma ... [says] it is not okay, then do not post it here." Clearly, this would violate en:WP:NOTCENSORED, but then, that is a policy page which is only applicable to en.wp. So, my question is, do all WMF projects have to adhere to an equivalent standard, or is it up to individual projects to proscribe/censor certain topics if they so wish? I wanted to first informally check whether there is anything to this before going somewhere like RFC. It Is Me Here t / c 23:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Hi. This should be moved to Wikimedia Forum, as it is not just about Meta. See WMF Resolutions/Controversial content. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikifiction (In-universe encyclopedia)

Discussion here seems to have stagnated. Is there any further interest in discussion? --Jakob (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Organizing the Grants: namespace

Tracked in Phabricator:
bug 58545

Hi everyone. I'm planning to run the GrantsBot to move a few hundred pages within and to the Grants: namespace for the purpose to organize all the pages maintained by the WMF grants programs in one place and make them more accessible for everyone. During this move all the pages in the Participation: namespace and all the pages in the FDC portal will be moved to Grants: namespace while leaving redirects behind. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards. --Haithams (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. After you've emptied it, remember to request removal of the Participation namespace (one less, hurray!), so that they become simple ns0 redirects; while you're at it, ask the Grants namespace to be made searched by default, or the currently-searchable FDC pages will suffer from a loss of functionality. --Nemo 21:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Nemo. That's the current plan for both removing the Participation: namespace and addition of Grants: namespace to default search. It's almost as we have a Wikipathy! --Haithams (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a sign that something is just rational. ;-) Ah, be careful when automatically moving translatable pages (e.g. when they're subpages of another page), results can be unexpected IIRC; I see there's only Participation:Support, so I suggest to move it first, "by hand". --Nemo 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point on the translatable pages. There are quite a lot of these, so I will run a few manual and automatic tests before deciding the best way to do it. Thanks! --Haithams (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This all seems reasonable to me. I think GrantsBot uses Python wikitools, so just be sure to set bot=1 when you call page.move() or whatever it is. If you need any technical help, there's tech. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! In fact, for this particular task, I will be using the PyWikipedia library. So there are no worries about setting the bot parameter. cheers. --Haithams (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The bug got fixed and the Grants: namespace is now searched by default on Meta. odder (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello. I am moving the election pages back where they belong; they were elections first, and related to grants only secondarily. Risker (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, forgot that my Meta adminship expired with the elections and adminship is required to move pages over redirects. I will go hunting for the proper page to ask for a page move. Risker (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Haithams:: It seems that a lot of the FDC pages were actually moved without leaving a redirect, breaking quite a few important links (e.g. at [1] or [2]). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. This is a bug in the translation extension as it doesn't leave a redirect when moving a translatable page. All pages should be recovered by now. Regards. --Haithams (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A Multimedia Vision for 2016

Happy new year!

Many thanks to all of you who contributed to our multimedia programs last year! Now that we have a new multimedia team at WMF, we look forward to making some good progress together this year.

To kick off the new year, here is a proposed multimedia vision for 2016, which was prepared by our multimedia and design teams, with guidance from community members.

This possible scenario is intended for discussion purposes, to help us visualize how we could improve our user experience over the next three years. We hope that it will spark useful community feedback on some of the goals we are considering.

The best way to view this vision is to watch this video:

File:Multimedia vision 2016.webm
Multimedia Vision 2016, presented by Fabrice Florin at a Wikimedia Meetup in San Francisco on Dec. 9, 2013.

Multimedia Vision Slides

You can also view this five-minute video in other file formats on YouTube and Vimeo -- or browse through these annotated slides, at your leisure.

This vision explores ways to integrate Wikimedia Commons more closely with Wikipedia and other MediaWiki projects, to help you contribute more easily to our free media repository -- wherever you are.

After you’ve viewed the video, we would be grateful if you could share your feedback in this discussion. We would like to hear from all Wikipedians who benefit from Commons, even if your work takes place on other sites.

In coming weeks, we will start more focused discussions on some key features outlined in this presentation. If you would like to join those conversations and keep up with our work, we invite you to subscribe to our multimedia mailing list.

We look forward to hearing from you -- and to more great collaborations in the new year! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on Wikimedia sites?

The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team seeks community guidance on a proposal to support the MP4 video format. This digital video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC.

Supporting the MP4 format would make it much easier for our users to view and contribute video on Wikimedia projects -- and video files could be offered in dual formats on our sites, so we could continue to support current open formats (WebM and Ogg Theora).

However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.

We would appreciate your guidance on whether or not to support MP4. Our Request for Comments presents views both in favor and against MP4 support, based on opinions we’ve heard in our discussions with community and team members.

Please join this RfC -- and share your advice.

All users are welcome to participate, whether you are active on Commons, Wikipedia, other Wikimedia project -- or any site that uses content from our free media repository.

You are also welcome to join tomorrow's Office hours chat on IRC, this Thursday, January 16, at 19:00 UTC, if you would like to discuss this project with our team and other community members.

We look forward to a constructive discussion with you, so we can make a more informed decision together on this important topic.

All the best, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask on Wikimedia Forum instead of Meta:Babel, as this has little to do with Meta-Wiki itself. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I'm posting here to the greater Meta-Wiki community to decide whether or not this page is appropriate enough for this wiki to warrant moving it out as a standalone 'article' here instead of as a subpage of 'broken', like Cherokee. I'm also seeing if there is any need to improve the page currently or keep it as historical record of the original call to get the Cherokee Wikipedia project up and running, complete with the spelling errors and other mistakes as it is. Or perhaps categorize it as one of the legacy Wikimedia pages here on Meta-Wiki like Japanese. It was originally created in the Outreach: namespace, which has since been deprecated and moved to Outreach Wiki so it is currently showing up in search results because its title at "Outreach:Cherokee" conflicts with the interwiki prefix, but it was moved out thanks to some Developer work. Going to cross-post to see the community's decision on what to do with this page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)